App Openapi Add Auth Inherit File

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls short. It says only that this is a write operation; it does not state what the inherit file affects, whether it overwrites existing config, required permissions/session profile behavior, or whether the change is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though the brevity reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and three confusingly similar siblings, one sentence is not enough — it omits the effect of the write, prerequisites, and sibling disambiguation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the six parameters (host, path, port, scheme, profile, app_name) documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — notably it does not clarify the difference between 'path' (鉴权继承文件路径) used here versus the auth-path concepts in the sibling tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (添加/add) and resource (OpenAPI 鉴权继承文件/auth inherit file), and flags it as a write operation, so the action is unambiguous. However it gives no signal distinguishing itself from the near-identical sibling app_openapi_add_auth_path (or app_openapi_allow_auth_paths), leaving the agent to guess which of the two write tools applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. app must already exist / appName from app_list), and no mention of the alternatives app_openapi_add_auth_path or app_openapi_allow_auth_paths. The only usage cue is the parenthetical '(写操作)', which restates the obvious instead of routing the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.